Jump to content
dustydingo

Is exclusive to one agency a safeguard against poor licensing models?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

How's this for missing out on what should have been huge licensing fees--it appears this image was exclusive to a particular "other" agency:

Single photograph used by political parties again and again and again . . . for a few quid.

 

DD

Edited by dustydingo
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

No, not at all. Just like exclusive to Alamy doesn't protect from tiny fees netting under $1. It's all about the buyer.

 

Where do we see that the author 'missed out on huge licensing fees'? I can't see what fee he got for each of these sales, (It may be that on G the file is marked at $39.50 as the article says, but many sales will be well below that, and some may have been well above that) and it may well be that the aggregation of all sales was (surprisingly to you, maybe?) high, even if undoubtedly many individual sales were small. Probably well into the thousands of dollars.

 

Some people prefer the model of a higher total earnings than higher individual sale prices. That may not be everyone's way, and that's fine.

Edited by Cryptoprocta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The two would seem to have little in common, especially since 100% exclusivity of content is almost impossible to claim in the digital age (IMO anyway). Exclusivity of submission to a particular agency is of course a different matter. That's all we can realistically assure any agency that we submit to.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Debateable when I had an exclusive image rights managed which netted a grand amount of 98 cents (73 pence)

 

No doubt that image was licensed multiple times and not for a single payment of  a "few quid"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the upcoming (?) "exclusive" offering might attract more customers, which would of course be a very good thing, but it won't necessarily mean higher fees these days. It's going to be a difficult road to navigate, though, with lots of bumps along the way.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

No, not at all. Just like exclusive to Alamy doesn't protect from tiny fees netting under $1. It's all about the buyer.

 

Where do we see that the author 'missed out on huge licensing fees'? I can't see what fee he got for each of these sales, (It may be that on G the file is marked at $39.50 as the article says, but many sales will be well below that, and some may have been well above that) and it may well be that the aggregation of all sales was (surprisingly to you, maybe?) high, even if undoubtedly many individual sales were small. Probably well into the thousands of dollars.

 

Some people prefer the model of a higher total earnings than higher individual sale prices. That may not be everyone's way, and that's fine.

 

It was a rhetorical question.

 

And as for fees . . . my understanding of the standard non-exclusive usage license from that exact mob tells me there was no need for an 'extended' license for any of the uses noted. YEMV of course.

 

DD

 

Edited by dustydingo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, dustydingo said:

And as for fees . . . my understanding of the standard non-exclusive usage license from that exact mob tells me there was no need for an 'extended' license for any of the uses noted. YEMV of course.

I wouldn't have thought there would be an extended licence needed.

However, just like Alamy, you never know what you're going to get for any given sale/usage. My highest value sale (gross and net) last year wasn't from Alamy, but it was from that agency for a photo of a common UK bird.

 

BTW, you said, "How's this for missing out on what should have been huge licensing fees*" - I see the political party has said it will hire photographers to make custom images using real people in future. Yay, a jobbing photographer wins. But what might the hourly fee be in Australia? I can't imagine, but let's say $250 per hour (I'm probably miles out one way or the other). But that's it, a one-off payment for the photo, which might be used once. Whatever the fee is for a one-off, I bet that particular image earned much more over its decade on iS than the jobbing photographer will get.

 

*But as an American, it's unlikely that an Australian political party would fly the stock shooter out to do the custom shoot, therefore he hasn't missed out on anything.

 

BTW2: an even funnier story is the Irish political party which used an iS stock photo to promote itself, as though it were quoting the woman in the image endorsing them (against iS's T&C) in big posters over a wide area - and when the rival party discovered that it was a stock photo, they bought it, put it on their own big posters, with the caption "I've changed my mind" (which can be an OK use if it's considered satire).

 

What I'm really shocked about in the article you linked to is that iS produced a model release, even with the model's name removed, and the article put her age and city. I guess the issue isn't so bad as the lady is apparently deceased, but still. 😞

 

Edited by Cryptoprocta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

BTW, you said, "How's this for missing out on what should have been huge licensing fees*" - I see the political party has said it will hire photographers to make custom images using real people in future. Yay, a jobbing photographer wins. 😞

 

 That is the big problem with the industry today. Non exclusive multiple conflicting sales of the same image means that the high priced exclusive sales cease to exist. Stock agencies used to service advertising clients with exclusive print needs and willing to pay for it. That is a market no stock agency is servicing today. Today the only way to ensure exclusivity is to buy exclusive from Alamy or hire a photographer on assignment. Maybe Alamy can reintroduce the clients to image exclusivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Bill Brooks said:

 That is the big problem with the industry today. Non exclusive multiple conflicting sales of the same image means that the high priced exclusive sales cease to exist. Stock agencies used to service advertising clients with exclusive print needs and willing to pay for it. That is a market no stock agency is servicing today. Today the only way to ensure exclusivity is to buy exclusive from Alamy or hire a photographer on assignment. Maybe Alamy can reintroduce the clients to image exclusivity.

 

With agencies sending out their images to 80 distribution partners or more, it seems that true exclusivity isn't possible. But if an agency wants you to place your images exclusively with them, they need to produce results via high image prices and quantity as well. RM seems to have no meaning here anymore, you can't even restrict things by industry, so if you license an image directly for an use that's exclusive to a particular industry, you need to remove the image from here completely even though in most instances the licenses would not conflict. 

 

If the images the OP refers to here were licensed to newspapers that number their subscribers in the millions, as appears to often have been the case, then that use would normally be considered an "extended license" as that term is understood in that segment of the industry. If they licensed a very large image for a billboard, again, it would require a significantly more expensive license. RF in the micro industry isn't RF as we understand it, it's really a hybrid. You need an extended license for true RF, and even then sensitive uses are not permitted under most licenses, unless you the buyer pays more and there is an unrestricted release, unlike Alamy's RF. 

Edited by Marianne
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

1 hour ago, Marianne said:

 

With agencies sending out their images to 80 distribution partners or more, it seems that true exclusivity isn't possible. But if an agency wants you to place your images exclusively with them, they need to produce results via high image prices and quantity as well.

 

 

Yes, it seems to me that only an agency without a distribution network can truly offer images as "exclusive" in the sense that is usually meant by the term. However, I'm probably missing something. Hopefully Alamy will define what they mean by "exclusive" -- e.g. images available only at Alamy and through its distributors. Contributors can guarantee exclusivity of submission only, which alone probably wouldn't lead to higher prices/volume.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.